I came upon this Ed Lasky piece from that racist and poorly written AmericanThinker in order to present more about the brilliance and intelligence (*gack*) of our heralded Commander in Chief. There are two links in the article. One is to the Washington Times article that spurred the piece to begin with. It's a must read. The other is to a previous Ed Lasky article that speaks to his "creds" as a legal scholar. That article has a number of links itself and at this late hour I haven't had the chance to enjoy them all.
When one thinks of all the crap that was made public regarding GW Bush's life before politics, his time in the oil industry, his ownership of the Texas Rangers, his college days, and how all of that was used to demonstrate how unfit he supposedly was to be president, it becomes more and more clear just how in the tank the press has truly been when articles like these expose the true cut of Obama's jib. Is there anything this guy has accomplished beyond bamboozling liberal chumps into supporting him? It doesn't appear so.
That Obama was totally inadequate for the position was well known to objective observers, most of whom were on the right (though some were on the left supporting an equally unqualified Hillary and John Edwards). We conservatives were dismayed at the less than conservative moves by Bush, particularly in the waning days as he tried to spend our way out of our economic woes. We were even more dismayed by the quality of candidates during the primaries, as the most conservative of the pack were eliminated, leaving us finally with McCain. But as we watched across to the other side and saw what was happening, how it came down to the two most liberal, and then finally to he who was obviously the worst possible choice, we could only hope and pray that the fence sitters and the disgruntled on the right who were feeling betrayed would see Obama for what he is now showing himself to be more than then, an empty suit. We could only hope and pray that libs weren't really that stupid. Sometimes prayers aren't answered. We're screwed. 2010 can't come fast enough.
Friday, February 13, 2009
31 comments:
Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.
We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2010 can't come fast enough.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't count any eggs before they're hatched...
Spoken like a true peace-maker, Daniel-san!
ReplyDeleteQuoted from the source article:
ReplyDelete"The column points out that terror suspects want as much information as they can so they can inform terror networks about the methods and people used by our government to track down terror suspects. ... This facilitates terror in the future. "
This is idiotic. The same situation applies in ordinary criminal cases. Criminals want to know how they were caught so they can avoid capture next time. The prosecutors are opposed to giving out that info. This is not a situation unique to terrorism cases. Ed Lasky and the Washington Times are being obtuse on purpose.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYour links are merely the usual prognostications. They don't take into account actual events yet to take place. You naturally are banking on Obama's proposals doing good for the nation. I'm expecting the opposite based on historic evidence that suggests such a thing. The only problem with mine is in just how tangible the negatives will be felt by suckers for Obama. It would need to resemble a baseball bat to the skull for such sheep to see how badly they've been hurt by Obama's moves.
It also depends on the ability of conservative or Republican candidates' abilities to articulate those negatives and the reason conservatism is better. Half the country is totally blind to such logic and truth so the right must do more to affect a paradigm shift.
Bent,
ReplyDeleteThere's a big difference between nat'l security and police investigation techniques for the average criminal. There is also a major difference in the quality of scumbag. The worst are those for whom death is a worthy goal. They intend to kill as a major accomplishment, not make money. In addition, police techniques for catching crooks is not necessarily something that isn't already widely known.
Prayers are always answered, Art. Sometimes God says "No".
ReplyDeletePerhaps He is trying to teach us something.
Do you think Marshall that terrorist cells don't operate on the same procedures and methods as criminal organizations? Certainly the same techniques work to catch them. The guys in the UK planning to blow up planes. The were caught using standard police techniques. same for the guys down in florida. The stupid dude that wanted to torch the brooklyn bridge. The intel retrieved off of battle fields in afghanistan... processed through standard intel operations.
ReplyDeleteTerrorist organizations are not new. The same techniques we have used before to battle other threats to our liberty are suited and adequate to this task.
I am continuously amazed that it is the liberals saying "everything will be okay. We can handle this." And the patriotic conservatives shouting "they're gonna kill us all! We aren't strong enough!"
GET A GRIP!
The criminal, judicial and military systems established by this nations founders and grown over the preceding two centuries are adequate to our defense.
Bent,
ReplyDeleteI insist that all of those resources are necessary to fight terrorism. What you fail to get a grip on is the scope of this threat. Criminals are after money, for the most part, and terrorrism seeks just a bit more. Criminals look to live long wallowing in their ill-gotten gain. Terrorists think dying is a good thing. Criminals don't have any desire to draw attention to themselves, so their activities can exist and rarely touch the lives of average civilians. Terrorists seek to dominate the world and direct attacks on the citizenry is a tactic on top of their list.
If you can't understand the greater urgency involved with combatting terrorism compared to fighting crime, then you're further gone than I thought.
If the extraordinary tactics favored by the Bush administration were appropriate to the task then by the end of his term we would have seen results. Unfortunately the number of incidents of terrorism increased every year under President Bush. The global index of anti-american feeling rose. These ideas don't work.
ReplyDeleteYou have yet to explain how terrorists' goals differentiate their methods from ordinary criminals.
Do they use unusual methods to acquire weapons?
Do they use unusual methods to cross borders?
Do they use unusual methods to communicate?
Bent,
ReplyDeleteI've explained the pertinent differences already. You've ignored them as insignificant and that's why your position would threaten us if adopted by your chuckleheaded Dem leaders. Indeed, it's why we were attacked at all.
We have not been attacked since 9/11. You want to insist that standard police techniques are sufficient but they didn't prevent the attacks in London, Spain, Beslan, and the recent Indian tragedy.
And here's another newsflash for you: Standard police techniques have not eliminated crime in America or anywhere else. What now, wise guy?
Results? As I stated, no attacks since 9/11. That's the most significant result of all, but we're on the verge of complete self-sufficiency by the Iraqi gov't in securing their own country. AQI has almost no activity in Iraq anymore.
And as to anti-American feeling? Who cares? Responsible people do the responsible thing without regard to what irresponsible and immature people think of it. The world can kiss America's ass (that would be San Francisco) for all I care if they can't get with the program.
"I've explained the pertinent differences already. "
ReplyDeleteNo. You have explained the different goals of these groups. My point is that the different goals do not affect the processes these groups use to reach their goals and the same techniques effective against criminal processes are also effective against terrorist processes. You have yet to suggest even one process that is different between criminals and terrorists.
"Results? As I stated, no attacks since 9/11."
The previous 200+ years passed without a foreign terrorist attack on the homeland. Did no one have the idea previously? Were not current techniques and procedures adequate for our defense for 200 years previously? Terrorism and Islamic extremism didn't spring forth fully grown in 2001. President George Bush failed. And the country in it's panic instituted ill-advised policies. It's time to admit and undo our mistakes.
"And as to anti-American feeling? Who cares? Responsible people do the responsible thing without regard to what irresponsible and immature people think of it. The world can kiss America's ass.."
What an enlightened attitude. Saying anyone who criticizes the U.S. is irresponsible and immature. If you can't understand how global feeling influences our daily lives then you need to sit quietly in a corner and refrain from making a more public fool of yourself. If public sentiment against the US gets strong enough the world can cripple the US through concerted economic strangulation.
Your simple belief in American exceptionalism blinds you to the reality of the world.
Bent,
ReplyDelete"No. You have explained the different goals of these groups."
These ARE the pertinent differences that result in the need for stronger tactics on our part, most of which are really not much different than what is used to deal with organized crime, but with the necessary tweaks needed to fight this particular group of scumbags.
"You have yet to suggest even one process that is different between criminals and terrorists."
Excuse me? The process of ramming jets into buildings is common to which criminal enterprise? Video taping beheadings is SOP for who? The mafia? The Latin Kings?
"The previous 200+ years passed without a foreign terrorist attack on the homeland. Did no one have the idea previously?"
No one had the means. The idea has been in place since Mohammed darkened the Middle East. Early in our history, they were attacking merchant ships that were doing business in their neck of the woods, such as the Barbary Coast. The rhetoric of the Islamists of that time were word for word the same as now.
The fact that terrorism still exists does not mean that Bush failed except that he has not eliminated it altogether. Hold that against him if you like, but you must hold it against all who came before him and so far Obama, too.
"Saying anyone who criticizes the U.S. is irresponsible and immature."
That's not what I'm saying at all. Pay attention. I said:
Responsible people do the responsible thing without regard to what irresponsible and immature people think of it.
We can't waste time trying to make idiots understand the virtues of our policies if they aren't smart enough, or honest enough, or willing enough, to see them. Are you going to take punch after punch from some scumbag simply because others won't see that defending yourself is the right thing to do? Are you going to let someone suffer because other's think it's none of your business? How shallow! How selfish! Reasonable people see our country for what it is without throwing in your type of rhetoric over it. I would submit that you can't support the notion that governments of other nations hold us in the contempt as might the foreign equivalents of our own liberal jackasses.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Thank you to George Bush, strong on terror:"
ReplyDeleteAnd another liberal idiot blames Bush for everything.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat would the Emperor of Jabberwocky have had Bush do? Invade Iran? You blame Bush for letting Iran acquire Uranium enough for a nuclear weapon?
ReplyDeleteThe idiocy and intellectual honesty of the Left is truly astounding!
The Left has been screaming about Israel's desire to take out Iran's capability; slamming Bush for America's defense of Israel, calling Israel's wars against Lebanon and Gaza "disproportionate". The likes of you, and Dan, and ER would have yelled all the more for impeachment and war-crimes trials for Bush and Cheney.
You, sir, are a hypocrite. True and through.
Besides that, Iran wouldn't have had the guts to anounce they have Nuclear capabilities under Bush. It is only since Obama was selected that they have the bravado.
ReplyDeleteBecause now, they know they have an enabler in the White House with all the spine of a Carter and the teeth of a paper tiger.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"If we'd had a competent President of either party for the last eight years, a lot more knowledge would have preceded action."
ReplyDeleteSpoken like a true Monday morning QB.
Of course considering the intel discovered after the Iraq invasion, Bush's actions would have been more justified rather than less. Even though some points were wrong, other points showed Hussein was more intent than we had thought regarding his desire and efforts to develop weapons. As to Iran, we had knowledge of their desire to build nuclear capability, but whiners from the left wept over the possibility that Bush would start trouble there. The left likes to believe that wackjobs like radical Islamists can be swayed by diplomacy, ever ignoring the history of radical Islam.
"Through with you."
How I pray that is so.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Blockade, international coalitions, strategic bombings, control of fly zones. These are tough actions with knowledge."
ReplyDeleteNone of these "tough actions" have stopped Iran. It's liberal fascists like you that have allowed the likes of Iran to step boldly to the threshold of nuclear weaponry.
Furthermore, the Left would have have writhed in apoplectic shock had Bush "strategically bombed" Iran. I repeat... what a hypocrite you are!
While the likes of Reagan fought and won the cold war, you and your panty-waisted crowd cried and bemoaned about how we would fail... and then the Berlin wall came down.
Liberalism is a disease. You are infected. There's only one cure. You're too far gone to reach for it.
The more you open your gob (figuratively speaking) the more pathetic your argument becomes.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFeodork,
ReplyDelete"Talk about idiotic Monday morning quarterbacking."
You wouldn't know the difference.
"Bush wasn't interested in justification for his actions. He was interested in a smoke screen of justification to feed to the American public."
That's only the idiotic opinion of idiot lefties like yourself, a buffoon incapable of knowing the mind of anyone else, never mind the president. Your comments, however, show that you're not interested in intelligent thought.
"...findings after invasion do not justify the American lives you take so cheaply."
Speaking of idiots...findings after the invasion VALIDATE decisions made resulting in the invasion. There was enough justification at the time. Basing opposing opinion on Bush-hatred is worthless, but typical of you.
"But blind, unknowing provocation of more hate and military action for revenge sake has made us less safe."
Fortunately for the nation, nothing like this happened, but blind unknowing Bush-hatred sees that which does not exist and it's prevalence amongst the left puts the nation at risk.
"If Obama wants to get tough with Iran, now that we know some things, I'm fine with that because someone competent is the commander in chief..."
There's nothing in Obama's history that could lead a reasonable person to make such a comment. His competence is undetermined, but idiot lefties and Bush-haters merely assume such only because Barry ain't George, and that has put our nation at risk.
"Bush didn't do anything strategically."
More opinion based on Bush-hatred only. Your every comment proves your opinion has no value.
"Reagan spent the Soviet Union into the ground and our country down to a stump."
Another lib historical re-write. Your every comment proves your opinion has no value.
"Bush cut off all talks and hard arm wringing with Iran eight years ago."
And it was a great idea, refusing to personally talk with scum, thereby giving them legitimacy. Barry, with no experience or intelligence, thinks he's gonna persuade people who want to see us destroyed. Yeah, what a brain.
"At the time, Iraq was under a lid..."
Yeah, merely murdering his own people, shooting at our planes patrolling the no-fly zone, supporting the suicidal/murderous Palestinians, and enriching himself through the Oil for Food program. Yeah, under a lid. Idiot.
"So Bush gave us what?"
A world without Hussein, something every tough-talking lib Democrat was calling for during the Clinton years. A decimated Taliban, which while trying to regain power, is still a shell of its former self. He gave us two nations formerly under despotic control which are now much closer to democracy than anyone would have ever thought possible. He gave us a Libya that has given up its nuclear desires. He gave us a radical Islam that is so happy they no longer have to contend with a US president that won't take their shit, but instead has a pretender that they will be able to snow with little effort.
You wouldn't know a sharp tool if it was rammed in your eye socket.
But you are a tool.
ReplyDeleteCorrection:
ReplyDeleteReagan DID spend the Soviet Union into the ground, but this was only possible because they were getting their butts kicked in Afghanistan. The Mujahideen cost them both lives and ungodly amounts of cash and their economy could not stand up under the pressure.
As to whether or not Reagan's build up ground us "down to a stump" is a matter of opinion, not fact. Carter decimated the military, as did Clinton, but to a lesser though more dangerous degree. Had Clinton taken Bin Laden when he was offered, 9.11 would not have happened. Afghanistan and Iraq would not have happened.
All the caterwauling on the Left about Bush would have been greatly reduced.
If you want the truth, Al Gore did more damage to the presidency than even George W. Bush did. Gore is still a crazy, lying, bitter, snake-oil salesman.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Except for his chillingly glib relief that no new attacks happened despite Bush's unsafe provocations. Does he not know that bin Laden set his mind to hurt us ten years before 9/11 when Bush elder stationed troops in Saudi Arabia?"
ReplyDeleteSo I'm guessing that that then happened, oh, I don't know, BEFORE Bush 43 was president? If so, and I have to believe it is, then you haven't refuted my statement.
My knowledge of history is strong enough to know when jokers like you distort it.
I have compassion for any human being treated so brutally by people like Hussein, and ignored by lefty chuckleheads like you. My compassion begins when I learn of the brutality, not when it's politically beneficial as with lefty chuckleheads like you.
"But 9/11 brings him to cherish pictures of the Twin Towers, towers I saw burning from my rooftop, whose smoke I could smell in my own home, the ashes of which I could taste and take into my body."
Fine. Pretend your proximity means something, as if you chose to be there when it happened. Fraud.
You learn what I think of suicidal/murderous Palestinians, as opposed to Palestinians in general, when you actually read my comments as they are written.
"And he says our current Commander in Chief does not have intelligence."
When he shows some as it pertains to being president, I'll change my tune.
"Who is Marshall to judge intelligence?"
I'm your better.
"How does a monkey judge Socrates?"
Now that's a stumper. How DO you judge Socrates, Chimpy?
"Eric says Al Gore did more to damage the Presidency than George W. Bush."
And he's right.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThat's funny, you thinkin' you're besting me. See my remarks in the latest thread.
ReplyDelete